Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

A

A

A

A

A

A

A

A

[GreatJustice]

The Soviets were never half as aggressive internationally as the West made them out to be. Immediately after WW2, their main priority was creating a buffer of puppet states to protect their borders proper from potential invasion, and generally could care less about their puppets' internal policies so long as they wouldn't let invaders in through the back door (hence why they let the Finns go without much of a fuss).

[Gervassen]

The Soviets were never half as aggressive internationally as the West made them out to be.

Khrushchev approves of that post so much, he'd bang his shoe on the table. 

[kingfisher1112]

To be fair, America does cover HUGE amounts of the world militarily. Certainly, it's not selfless, but it ain't malicious or them getting all the gain. It's more symbiotic. America gets influence and the world gets protection. It is true that the European militaries are weak. Very weak.

They're not weak. They're appropriate. Look at the military spending charts:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_military_expenditures
Find me on that list a single country that may be considered a threat to the European powers, and ask yourself which side is better funded.

Russia: 400,000 ground pounders.
Britain: Half that.
Not even counting air forces.
Russia would stomp the EU easily. Even worse is the fact that Britain doesn't have carriers, a few European nations use Abrams, and other such factors. Only Switzerland would survive.

[10ebbor10]

But then again, is Russia a threat. Eu-Russian trade is rather important to their economy, and losing that market would crash it.

[Zangi]

To be fair, America does cover HUGE amounts of the world militarily. Certainly, it's not selfless, but it ain't malicious or them getting all the gain. It's more symbiotic. America gets influence and the world gets protection. It is true that the European militaries are weak. Very weak.

They're not weak. They're appropriate. Look at the military spending charts:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_military_expenditures
Find me on that list a single country that may be considered a threat to the European powers, and ask yourself which side is better funded.

Russia: 400,000 ground pounders.
Britain: Half that.
Not even counting air forces.
Russia would stomp the EU easily. Even worse is the fact that Britain doesn't have carriers, a few European nations use Abrams, and other such factors. Only Switzerland would survive.

So... where are you getting those numbers?  What are those numbers about? 
How did you come to the conclusion that Russia would stomp the EU?  Cause it ain't clear enough to me...

[10ebbor10]

The above. If the Russia has 400 000 units, and Brittain has half that, then we should be able to gather the other half between all the other countries that are in the EU.

And well, just to illustrate just how ridicously bloated the American military budget is, have the following graph.

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

The US budget accounts for almost 40% of worldwide military spending.

[Leafsnail]

Britain is not the only country in the EU that has an army.  If you add up all the EU countries Russia would be significantly outnumbered and massively outspent, and that gap would only get larger if you add in commonwealth countries that'd likely get involved.

I like the idea that Switzerland would survive while everyone else would perish, incidentally.  In spite of the fact that its milita/ "army" is the same size as the UK's but with much less training and equipment, and it has no real airforce, Switzerland would be able to hang on completely surrounded by Russian occupied countries.

[Digital Hellhound]

That figure is not even accurate according to other Wikipedia lists. Go figure. An Europe-wide invasion isn't really feasible for Russia, for all their army looks impressive on paper (even if the US was magically kept from interfering).

Plus, everybody knows Leopards and co are much cooler than Abrams anyway (which, you'll note, no European countries use). And 'other such factors' is just embarrassingly vague.   

[10ebbor10]

Yup, you don't need to actually invade to force a surrender. Bomb from a distance, or well, just starve them out.

That figure is not even accurate according to other Wikipedia lists. Go figure. An Europe-wide invasion isn't really feasible for Russia, for all their army looks impressive on paper (even if the US was magically kept from interfering). 

My graph, or kingfishers?

[Digital Hellhound]

That figure is not even accurate according to other Wikipedia lists. Go figure. An Europe-wide invasion isn't really feasible for Russia, for all their army looks impressive on paper (even if the US was magically kept from interfering). 

My graph, or kingfishers?

Kingfisher's '400,000 ground pounders' figure.

[MetalSlimeHunt]

How about "it is completely irrational and self-defeating for Russia to try to invade Europe, because this is not a cheap FPS".

[Digital Hellhound]

How about "it is completely irrational and self-defeating for Russia to try to invade Europe, because this is not a cheap FPS".

But... but...

You're no fun.

[kingfisher1112]

Compare the American welfare/pensions budget and the Defence budget.
Which is the bloated one?

How about "it is completely irrational and self-defeating for Russia to try to invade Europe, because this is not a cheap FPS".

First off-
Why is it self defeating? Russia has a lot to gain. No need for trade when you own the supplies with only maintenance cost to you.
Second off-
Why is their military budget so large? What? Is it dickwaving? inb4 yes.

[10ebbor10]

Most wars tend to be quite destructive. The European Union is the worlds largest trading block, and the economic repercusions of it's destruction would be severe.

The welfare and pensions budgets are similar in size. Don't see what you're talking about. Besides it's not like you can decide to not give people a pensions. Can't leave them to starve.

[Il Palazzo]

Compare the American welfare/pensions budget and the Defence budget.
Which is the bloated one?

That would be the defence budget.
Shoot me another!